Crystal Cox Petitions For Cert (Update)

It was less than effective to raise the question before the 9th Circuit, and that was with Eugene Volokh making the best possible argument out of a monumentally trivial, yet insignificantly irrelevant, line in an opinion where she otherwise won. And so what does Crystal Cox do? Wait for it…

The sole purpose is to have the Supreme Court redact the sentence that offends her from the opinion. And so naturally, she raised a few questions:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:

Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?

Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?

Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?

Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?

Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?

Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?

Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supremes or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?

Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?

Do judges have the right to convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings based on New York Times articles?

Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?

Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?

Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of?

So if you ever wanted to know the answers to any of these questions, this is your chance to find out. Since Cox is an “anti-corruption blogger” who fights for the rights of everyone like her, this could certainly be something the Supremes will happily consider from a pro se litigant.

Update: In the meantime, Marc Randazza is giving back the domains obtained from Cox via the WIPO decision to their namesakes, free of charge. Not that Cox bought them for any malevolent purpose, of course, because she just want to make sure their reputation was properly managed.

Post navigation

11 comments on “Crystal Cox Petitions For Cert (Update)”

An organization that calls itself AXJ Global sent out PR announcing they will represent “defendant” Cox before the Supreme Court. AXJ claims to track missing children, but click on any of the links in the list of About and they bring you to Facebook’s sign up page or, for Legal, to Martindale. Looks like a good fit, AXJ and Cox.

1) As SHG pointed out previously, Volokh had no further duty after the 9th Circuit issued its opinion. Absent any appeals, additional actions are at his discretion.
2) Volokh is clever. We can conclude his continued counsel was for personal concerns.
3) Volokh knew that Cox would undermine the decision if left to her own devices. Absent appropriate assistance, her meddling might mangle his masterful management.
4) If a client insists upon ignoring instruction, I ethically endorse employment extension in efforts to extenuate inevitable eventualities.
5) If karma comes calling when Cox continues contrary to Volokh’s counsel, I suspect Volokh won’t shed any tears — so long as she’s the singular subject to suffer the consequences.
6) I liked Randazza’s Amicus Curiae.

Well, is 2/3 of the Supremes enough to render a decision? I mean, Florence Ballard Chapman died February 22, 1976, so that just leaves Mary Wilson and Diana Ernestine Earle Ross alive. I’m not sure what legal training they have had and whether they have the authority to review 9th Circuit Court rulings. Still, I’m sure it is worth a try. If that doesn’t work, maybe she could also try to get a decision in the Court of Public Opinion.

Please tell me you wrote this on a porch somewhere after dark, listening to crickets chirping while drinking beer out of a cheap cooler while fortified with snacks with an “evil” but fun smirk on your face.

While I cannot claim to have read all of Ms. Cox’s pro se filings, from the cert petition it looks like the Reverend Cox has created and then been ordained by the Bringing Back Goddess Church since the 2013 round of filings. I’m guessing her future complaints will include religious oppression any time a court rules against her.

Scott H. Greenfield

Nothing in this blog constitutes
legal advice. This is free.
Legal advice you have to pay for.EmailTwitter: @ScottGreenfield

What Do You Think?

I allow thoughtful comments, but please keep yours civil and respectful. There are rules here. I reserve the right to delete or edit any/all comments. Links are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. If you don't like the rules, comment elsewhere. Volenti non fit injuria.
SHG